Of course they do, it's their store. And I can certanly see where they are coming from. But I can't fathom how people other than the direction of the Target and Kmart can agree with people who created that petition.
Agree in what sense? Agree with their opinion of the game? Not completely, no, although they're hardly the first bunch to call the whole GTA series out for some of its artistic statements, which is completely fine.
I agree that they have a right to send in a petition. And I agree that the store had a right to choose to do what they ask. Or to not choose to do what they ask. These are basic freedoms and there's nothing wrong with people making use of them.
It's not censorship.
It's just some people doing stuff they have a right to do, but that you don't like. It's okay not to like it and it's okay to think that it was a dumb or pointless move -- I certainly agree on the "pointless" part. But all of this pearl-clutching "HOW DARE THEY CENSOR US!!" bullcrap just makes the gaming community look like a bunch of whiny spoiled brats with no grasp of the real world and the inability to look up definitions in the dictionary. I'm getting really, really tired of certain segments of the gaming community making us all look bad (like, really, incredibly bad) and I just wish J&M would quit encouraging those elements.
Edited to add: Really liked Jim's take on it, particularly the commentary that started at about 0:49 and went on for the next five or so seconds. That summed up my reaction to this kerfuffle really well. I also got a really funny image in my head of meth dealers getting outraged at Toys R Us pulling the Breaking Bad toys and starting up petitions and Twitter campaigns to claim that Toys R Us was censoring their favorite art and that meth dealing really wasn't that bad and they were being unfairly represented. Made me snicker a lot. Thanks Jim!
That people think GTA V is exactly the same as David or Lolita with respect to this issue is one reason why people don't take gaming seriously.
So, not someone who sees videogames as art, I take it? How slippery is your slope -- how do Dear Esther, interactive novels, comics, film, or literature rank?
For a game to be art, it needs to have at least 2 of the following 3 features on its Steam store page:
The "Walking Simulator" tag
A negative review complaining about length (and also hopefully complaining about the price per hour of gameplay)
A review calling it "not a game" or "not technically a game"
But I really shouldn't be giving you the time of day. Here, we have a bunch of people who don't play videogames,
Citation needed
successfully shaming an organisation into not stocking said videogame that they don't play (after a year of doing so), in order to visibly demonstrate that their squawks are worth more than the general public. And you guys are ok with that because ... this self-censorship doesn't offend you?
"Squawks". I can see how you feel their opinions are worth less than "OBJECTIVE REVIEWS". How dare they.
I suppose you were ok with Jack Thompson's crusade against GTA too. Or feminism vs Dickwolves remaining blameless after starting the controversy themselves.
You mean the thing where Jerry and Mike made jokes about "rape culture" being a band name and started printing Dickwolves shirts specifically to piss off the people who were offended by casual rape references?
Oh yeah that was totally on the rape victims. They sure made fools out of them.
To be fair, I have no idea why those people who signed petition think that they have the right to decide what's good or bad for people who are over 18. You think that this game is bad for kids? Great, don't let your child play it. Other people have the right to decide for themselves what's good or bad.
With that said, I can't say that it's a real censorship, since you can still buy the game elsewhere.
And the people who run Target have the right to say "we don't want to sell this game".
Of course they do, it's their store. And I can certanly see where they are coming from. But I can't fathom how people other than the direction of the Target and Kmart can agree with people who created that petition.
Of course they do, it's their store. And I can certanly see where they are coming from. But I can't fathom how people other than the direction of the Target and Kmart can agree with people who created that petition.
Agree in what sense? Agree with their opinion of the game? Not completely, no, although they're hardly the first bunch to call the whole GTA series out for some of its artistic statements, which is completely fine.
Agree with the implications of their petition. They didn't create it to express their opinion, they created it to ban the game(luckly, only from two retail stores). Which means that they think that they have the right to decide if game that they clearly didn't play enough(or at all) can be distributed.
Of course they do, it's their store. And I can certanly see where they are coming from. But I can't fathom how people other than the direction of the Target and Kmart can agree with people who created that petition.
Agree in what sense? Agree with their opinion of the game? Not completely, no, although they're hardly the first bunch to call the whole GTA series out for some of its artistic statements, which is completely fine.
Agree with the implications of their petition. They didn't create it to express their opinion, they created it to ban the game(luckly, only from two retail stores). Which means that they think that they have the right to decide if game that they clearly didn't play enough(or at all) can be distributed.
Only lawmakers could make that happen. They didn't write to lawmakers. They wrote to a store. Period. Come on, man. Aussies won the battle to have adult games. They WON!
Of course they do, it's their store. And I can certanly see where they are coming from. But I can't fathom how people other than the direction of the Target and Kmart can agree with people who created that petition.
Agree in what sense? Agree with their opinion of the game? Not completely, no, although they're hardly the first bunch to call the whole GTA series out for some of its artistic statements, which is completely fine.
Agree with the implications of their petition. They didn't create it to express their opinion, they created it to ban the game(luckly, only from two retail stores).
Something not being carried in a particular store is not "banned".
Of course they do, it's their store. And I can certanly see where they are coming from. But I can't fathom how people other than the direction of the Target and Kmart can agree with people who created that petition.
Agree in what sense? Agree with their opinion of the game? Not completely, no, although they're hardly the first bunch to call the whole GTA series out for some of its artistic statements, which is completely fine.
Agree with the implications of their petition. They didn't create it to express their opinion, they created it to ban the game(luckly, only from two retail stores).
Something not being carried in a particular store is not "banned".
Still though, what made them think that they have the right to decide it? And what makes some people think that it is acceptable to judge medium you know nothing about?
Of course they do, it's their store. And I can certanly see where they are coming from. But I can't fathom how people other than the direction of the Target and Kmart can agree with people who created that petition.
Agree in what sense? Agree with their opinion of the game? Not completely, no, although they're hardly the first bunch to call the whole GTA series out for some of its artistic statements, which is completely fine.
Agree with the implications of their petition. They didn't create it to express their opinion, they created it to ban the game(luckly, only from two retail stores).
Something not being carried in a particular store is not "banned".
Still though, what made them think that they have the right to decide it? And what makes some people think that it is acceptable to judge medium you know nothing about?
Of course they do, it's their store. And I can certanly see where they are coming from. But I can't fathom how people other than the direction of the Target and Kmart can agree with people who created that petition.
Agree in what sense? Agree with their opinion of the game? Not completely, no, although they're hardly the first bunch to call the whole GTA series out for some of its artistic statements, which is completely fine.
Agree with the implications of their petition. They didn't create it to express their opinion, they created it to ban the game(luckly, only from two retail stores).
Something not being carried in a particular store is not "banned".
Still though, what made them think that they have the right to decide it? And what makes some people think that it is acceptable to judge medium you know nothing about?
Who said they know nothing about it?
First lines of petition:
It's a game that encourages players to murder women for entertainment. The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points
The game never actually encourages you to murder innocent women, it's mostly your choise. You can't commit sexual violence(unless they count having sex with prostitutes as sexual violence). And you don't get HP for killing anyone.
GTA is clearly a very violent game, but there is line between game allowing you to do something, and encouraging you to do it.
Based on it, I would assume that they didn't actually play the game, and mostly based their petition on their assumptions about the game and the fact that most people who aren't gamers will believe people who created this petition, with GTA being the subject of controversy in the past.
Also, the author of the petition was constantly saying that the game is misogynistic, which is not actually true, since misogyny is a hatred for women, while in GTA you can hate and kill both men and women. So I guess the word "misanthropy" will apply better. But I feel like being a misanthrope won't be viewed as negative as being a misogynist, so they chose this word for petition to demonize the game a little more.
Still though, what made them think that they have the right to decide it? And what makes some people think that it is acceptable to judge medium you know nothing about?
They didn't decide squat. Target-AU decided. And Target-Au bloody well has the right to decide what they want to carry in their store.
And anyone can have any opinion about anything they want -- no one has to apply to you to get permission to have an opinion, even one you find stupid. Get it?
Still though, what made them think that they have the right to decide it? And what makes some people think that it is acceptable to judge medium you know nothing about?
They didn't decide squat. Target-AU decided. And Target-Au bloody well has the right to decide what they want to carry in their store.
And anyone can have any opinion about anything they want -- no one has to apply to you to get permission to have an opinion, even one you find stupid. Get it?
Of course I get it. But as you said, everyone can have an opinion, and I will hold onto my. The petition wasn't expressing opinion about how much they dislike the game. It was a demand to game this game removed, even though it was rated in AU, and AU is known to be very strict regarding such games.
Anyways, as I said, since the game can still be bought there it's no actual problem. And it wouldn't be as bad if the complains of the petitioners were valid, but as can be seen, they clearly have little idea what they are talking about. While GTA is a really violent and brutal game, it's not as bad as they make it out to be.
Of course they do, it's their store. And I can certanly see where they are coming from. But I can't fathom how people other than the direction of the Target and Kmart can agree with people who created that petition.
Agree in what sense? Agree with their opinion of the game? Not completely, no, although they're hardly the first bunch to call the whole GTA series out for some of its artistic statements, which is completely fine.
Agree with the implications of their petition. They didn't create it to express their opinion, they created it to ban the game(luckly, only from two retail stores).
Something not being carried in a particular store is not "banned".
Still though, what made them think that they have the right to decide it? And what makes some people think that it is acceptable to judge medium you know nothing about?
Who said they know nothing about it?
First lines of petition:
It's a game that encourages players to murder women for entertainment. The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points
The game never actually encourages you to murder innocent women, it's mostly your choise. You can't commit sexual violence(unless they count having sex with prostitutes as sexual violence). And you don't get HP for killing anyone.
GTA is clearly a very violent game, but there is line between game allowing you to do something, and encouraging you to do it.
Based on it, I would assume that they didn't actually play the game, and mostly based their petition on their assumptions about the game and the fact that most people who aren't gamers will believe people who created this petition, with GTA being the subject of controversy in the past.
Also, the author of the petition was constantly saying that the game is misogynistic, which is not actually true, since misogyny is a hatred for women, while in GTA you can hate and kill both men and women. So I guess the word "misanthropy" will apply better. But I feel like being a misanthrope won't be viewed as negative as being a misogynist, so they chose this word for petition to demonize the game a little more.
From the UK Gamespot review:
"On a less positive note, it’s deeply frustrating that, while its central and supporting male characters are flawed and complex characters, with a few extremely minor exceptions (such as the aforementioned optional getaway driver), GTA V has little room for women except to portray them as strippers, prostitutes, long-suffering wives, humorless girlfriends and goofy, new-age feminists we’re meant to laugh at.
Characters constantly spout lines that glorify male sexuality while demeaning women, and the billboards and radio stations of the world reinforce this misogyny, with ads that equate manhood with sleek sports cars while encouraging women to purchase a fragrance that will make them “smell like a bitch.” Yes, these are exaggerations of misogynistic undercurrents in our own society, but not satirical ones. With nothing in the narrative to underscore how insane and wrong this is, all the game does is reinforce and celebrate sexism. The beauty of cruising in the sun-kissed Los Santos hills while listening to “Higher Love” by Steve Winwood turns sour really quick when a voice comes on the radio that talks about using a woman as a urinal."
Still though, what made them think that they have the right to decide it? And what makes some people think that it is acceptable to judge medium you know nothing about?
They didn't decide squat. Target-AU decided. And Target-Au bloody well has the right to decide what they want to carry in their store.
And anyone can have any opinion about anything they want -- no one has to apply to you to get permission to have an opinion, even one you find stupid. Get it?
Of course I get it. But as you said, everyone can have an opinion, and I will hold onto my. The petition wasn't expressing opinion about how much they dislike the game. It was a demand to game this game removed, even though it was rated in AU, and AU is known to be very strict regarding such games.
Anyways, as I said, since the game can still be bought there it's no actual problem. And it wouldn't be as bad if the complains of the petitioners were valid, but as can be seen, they clearly have little idea what they are talking about. While GTA is a really violent and brutal game, it's not as bad as they make it out to be.
It was expressing the fact that they will not shop at Target AU as long as Target AU carries a product they see as destructive. The second part is the opinion. The first is what that opinion is leading them to do.
Not supporting a company that is selling something that you see is bad is just acting based on personal preference. Letting that company know how you feel is feedback. What's wrong with consumer feedback?
Still though, what made them think that they have the right to decide it? And what makes some people think that it is acceptable to judge medium you know nothing about?
They didn't decide squat. Target-AU decided. And Target-Au bloody well has the right to decide what they want to carry in their store.
And anyone can have any opinion about anything they want -- no one has to apply to you to get permission to have an opinion, even one you find stupid. Get it?
Of course I get it. But as you said, everyone can have an opinion, and I will hold onto my. The petition wasn't expressing opinion about how much they dislike the game. It was a demand to game this game removed, even though it was rated in AU, and AU is known to be very strict regarding such games.
Anyways, as I said, since the game can still be bought there it's no actual problem. And it wouldn't be as bad if the complains of the petitioners were valid, but as can be seen, they clearly have little idea what they are talking about. While GTA is a really violent and brutal game, it's not as bad as they make it out to be.
It was expressing the fact that they will not shop at Target AU as long as Target AU carries a product they see as destructive. The second part is the opinion. The first is what that opinion is leading them to do.
Not supporting a company that is selling something that you see is bad is just acting based on personal preference. Letting that company know how you feel is feedback. What's wrong with consumer feedback?
It mostly depends on whether those claims that they sent the request to remove GTA V from shelves to Target US are true. Though I doubt it.
Still though, what made them think that they have the right to decide it? And what makes some people think that it is acceptable to judge medium you know nothing about?
They didn't decide squat. Target-AU decided. And Target-Au bloody well has the right to decide what they want to carry in their store.
And anyone can have any opinion about anything they want -- no one has to apply to you to get permission to have an opinion, even one you find stupid. Get it?
Of course I get it. But as you said, everyone can have an opinion, and I will hold onto my. The petition wasn't expressing opinion about how much they dislike the game. It was a demand to game this game removed, even though it was rated in AU, and AU is known to be very strict regarding such games.
Anyways, as I said, since the game can still be bought there it's no actual problem. And it wouldn't be as bad if the complains of the petitioners were valid, but as can be seen, they clearly have little idea what they are talking about. While GTA is a really violent and brutal game, it's not as bad as they make it out to be.
It was expressing the fact that they will not shop at Target AU as long as Target AU carries a product they see as destructive. The second part is the opinion. The first is what that opinion is leading them to do.
Not supporting a company that is selling something that you see is bad is just acting based on personal preference. Letting that company know how you feel is feedback. What's wrong with consumer feedback?
It mostly depends on whether those claims that they sent the request to remove GTA V from shelves to Target US are true. Though I doubt it.
Your and their opinion is based on each respective interpretation of the game. Your subjective interpretation of the game is different from their subjective interpretation. They haven't banned a game from anywhere. They simply told a store they find one of their products objectionable and would probably shop somewhere else if they continued to sell that product. Target weighed their options and decided these customers were more important to them than people who wanted to buy GTA. Nothing was banned and no one was censored any more than when Target continues to not sell porn.
They've already talked about how they're going to move on to other stores now that they've had success with Target and Kmart (I'd cite the article I read it on but I can't find it right now) so a blanket ban is their end goal. They may or may not succeed but I don't believe that they will. At the end of the day you have a group of people trying to prevent adults from experiencing a creative work under the assertion that adults cannot tell between fantasy and reality. This is no different from the countless other attempts that have been made against other controversial creative works throughout history. You may think that this is ok, I disagree.
P.S. Please stop using feminist/feminism as some sort of dirty word, it makes you sound like an idiot. Also, please stop comparing GTAV to kiddie porn, it's equally ridiculous.
A lot of the misogyny in GTAV isn't in the hooker-murder, since that's such an easy argument to dismiss anyway
No, it's in the many bits of radio dialogue, ambient pedestrian dialogue, billboard advertisements, and dialogue and behavior of various characters in the game's cutscenes.
Those are almost universally offensive and are predicated on misogynistic stereotyping and poor, sub-South Park attempts at "humor".
What makes GTAV misogynistic isn't that adults can't tell fantasy from reality and are going to go out and murder sex workers because video games.
It's that it reinforces existent societal prejudices and hatreds against women, trans people, etc.
Ones that are not violent, but are nonetheless insidious, unchallenged, and easily reinforced especially among the game's target demographic of young white men.
Will it lead to those young men killing prostitutes? No, I don't think so. Will it help reinforce notions that it's normal and okay to think women are bitches and whores who exist to either suck their dicks or make their lives hell?
Yep. That's where some feel it's not for the net good of society to be available.
A lot of the misogyny in GTAV isn't in the hooker-murder, since that's such an easy argument to dismiss anyway
No, it's in the many bits of radio dialogue, ambient pedestrian dialogue, billboard advertisements, and dialogue and behavior of various characters in the game's cutscenes.
Those are almost universally offensive and are predicated on misogynistic stereotyping and poor, sub-South Park attempts at "humor".
What makes GTAV misogynistic isn't that adults can't tell fantasy from reality and are going to go out and murder sex workers because video games.
It's that it reinforces existent societal prejudices and hatreds against women, trans people, etc.
Ones that are not violent, but are nonetheless insidious, unchallenged, and easily reinforced especially among the game's target demographic of young white men.
Will it lead to those young men killing prostitutes? No, I don't think so. Will it help reinforce notions that it's normal and okay to think women are bitches and whores who exist to either suck their dicks or make their lives hell?
Yep. That's where some feel it's not for the net good of society to be available.
You're still asserting that adults are going to carry those behaviours outside of the game because they're unable to tell where one ends and the other begins and I still disagree.
A lot of the misogyny in GTAV isn't in the hooker-murder, since that's such an easy argument to dismiss anyway
No, it's in the many bits of radio dialogue, ambient pedestrian dialogue, billboard advertisements, and dialogue and behavior of various characters in the game's cutscenes.
Those are almost universally offensive and are predicated on misogynistic stereotyping and poor, sub-South Park attempts at "humor".
What makes GTAV misogynistic isn't that adults can't tell fantasy from reality and are going to go out and murder sex workers because video games.
It's that it reinforces existent societal prejudices and hatreds against women, trans people, etc.
Ones that are not violent, but are nonetheless insidious, unchallenged, and easily reinforced especially among the game's target demographic of young white men.
Will it lead to those young men killing prostitutes? No, I don't think so. Will it help reinforce notions that it's normal and okay to think women are bitches and whores who exist to either suck their dicks or make their lives hell?
Yep. That's where some feel it's not for the net good of society to be available.
You're still asserting that adults are going to carry those behaviours outside of the game because they're unable to tell where one ends and the other begins and I still disagree.
The problem isn't people getting those behaviors from the game. People already have those behaviors.
The problem is another piece of media reinforcing those attitudes as being sociably acceptable. And once again, I'd you don't believe media can have that type of effect of normalizing stereotypes or behaviors, just take a look at any piece of political propaganda produced in the last oh.... Since the dawn of man.
A lot of the misogyny in GTAV isn't in the hooker-murder, since that's such an easy argument to dismiss anyway
No, it's in the many bits of radio dialogue, ambient pedestrian dialogue, billboard advertisements, and dialogue and behavior of various characters in the game's cutscenes.
Those are almost universally offensive and are predicated on misogynistic stereotyping and poor, sub-South Park attempts at "humor".
What makes GTAV misogynistic isn't that adults can't tell fantasy from reality and are going to go out and murder sex workers because video games.
It's that it reinforces existent societal prejudices and hatreds against women, trans people, etc.
Ones that are not violent, but are nonetheless insidious, unchallenged, and easily reinforced especially among the game's target demographic of young white men.
Will it lead to those young men killing prostitutes? No, I don't think so. Will it help reinforce notions that it's normal and okay to think women are bitches and whores who exist to either suck their dicks or make their lives hell?
Yep. That's where some feel it's not for the net good of society to be available.
You're still asserting that adults are going to carry those behaviours outside of the game because they're unable to tell where one ends and the other begins and I still disagree.
people get their ideas about what is "normal" from their surroundings
this includes their friends, their family, their neighbourhood, their education and also the media they consume
if your media is constantly telling you that sexism is normal you will internalize that, even if you don't agree with it on a conscious level
that last point is key
people think that if they don't believe they are sexist, they can't be sexist. it doesn't work like that. you can earnestly believe you don't hate women and still act in a way that is consonant with hating women. nobody has as much conscious control over that as they think they do
so the idea that people are smart enough to distinguish between what a game is telling them and what is actually true is true on the surface but kind of misses the point
This whole target thing rubs me the wrong way. There's enough room in this world for us to see the things we want to see and avoid the things we dislike. While people have the right to voice their opinion, I will never support or stand for people attempting to control the artistic works of others based on their own morality.
This is the same argument it has always been, all the way back to the Catholic disfigurement of nude statues and purging of "lewd" art. It's just fancied up for modern outrage and sensibilities. Another silly expedition into foisting ones personal morals into the world of art.
This whole target thing rubs me the wrong way. There's enough room in this world for us to see the things we want to see and avoid the things we dislike. While people have the right to voice their opinion, I will never support or stand for people attempting to control the artistic works of others based on their own morality.
This is the same argument it has always been, all the way back to the Catholic disfigurement of nude statues and purging of "lewd" art. It's just fancied up for modern outrage and sensibilities. Another silly expedition into foisting ones personal morals into the world of art.
Frankiedarling correct me if i'm wrong but did you not at one time argue against the prohibition of manga depicting sex and nudity with identifiable minors
if i'm wrong, i'm wrong, or if i'm right but your views have changed and you wanna walk back from that viewpoint, by all means point that out
but i seem to recall at one point that being your stated viewpoint, that because such works are intrinsically fictitious and do not depict harm to actual, literal children they should not be restricted to any prohibition or even social rebuke and should be deemed as socially acceptable as any other form of "art"
if i am mischaracterizing your viewpoint please feel free to correct me but
i dunno i mean, consistency of viewpoints and all that, bro
This whole target thing rubs me the wrong way. There's enough room in this world for us to see the things we want to see and avoid the things we dislike. While people have the right to voice their opinion, I will never support or stand for people attempting to control the artistic works of others based on their own morality.
This is the same argument it has always been, all the way back to the Catholic disfigurement of nude statues and purging of "lewd" art. It's just fancied up for modern outrage and sensibilities. Another silly expedition into foisting ones personal morals into the world of art.
Frankiedarling correct me if i'm wrong but did you not at one time argue against the prohibition of manga depicting sex and nudity with identifiable minors
if i'm wrong, i'm wrong, or if i'm right but your views have changed and you wanna walk back from that viewpoint, by all means point that out
but i seem to recall at one point that being your stated viewpoint, that because such works are intrinsically fictitious and do not depict harm to actual, literal children they should not be restricted to any prohibition or even social rebuke and should be deemed as socially acceptable as any other form of "art"
if i am mischaracterizing your viewpoint please feel free to correct me but
i dunno i mean, consistency of viewpoints and all that, bro
I don't remember the instance, though I will say I'm firmly on the side of fiction being fiction, no matter if it's role play, literature or pornography.
Some depictions are entirely distasteful to me but if it is legal, as far as I'm concerned people can fuck right off with trying to police tastes and fetishes. It's a muddy road that way, full of hypocrisy and inconsistency
This whole target thing rubs me the wrong way. There's enough room in this world for us to see the things we want to see and avoid the things we dislike. While people have the right to voice their opinion, I will never support or stand for people attempting to control the artistic works of others based on their own morality.
This is the same argument it has always been, all the way back to the Catholic disfigurement of nude statues and purging of "lewd" art. It's just fancied up for modern outrage and sensibilities. Another silly expedition into foisting ones personal morals into the world of art.
I don't know why I bother, since no one ever seems to counter my examples, but... let's say I create an artistic work that offends 99% of the population. If I cannot find a retailer to sell it, has my artistic work been "controlled" by others? Or have I just not been able to sell it through a third-party retailer? If I do find a retailer who will sell it, but they pull it after realizing how offensive it is, has my artistic work been "controlled" by others? If I find a retailer who will sell it, but the customer reaction is to boycott the store and the retailer goes out of business, has my artistic work been "controlled"? Or am I just being told that no one wants my work, and that retailers don't want my work representing their store?
I'm free to create whatever artistic work I want, but I don't have an inherent right to have it available in stores. And everyone else is free to express their opinion by refusing to shop at places that carry works that they find to be offensive. If my work is offensive to people and I need to make money, then I need to start making work that won't offend people. But if I don't need money? I can make whatever offensive work I want (some restrictions apply, obviously).
As I've asked before to others (and again, anyone who I've asked this to has failed to respond) - do you think that consumers should never express their displeasure over the sale of offensive items? Is there no point where you would say "yeah, customers have a right to complain about that"?
This whole target thing rubs me the wrong way. There's enough room in this world for us to see the things we want to see and avoid the things we dislike. While people have the right to voice their opinion, I will never support or stand for people attempting to control the artistic works of others based on their own morality.
This is the same argument it has always been, all the way back to the Catholic disfigurement of nude statues and purging of "lewd" art. It's just fancied up for modern outrage and sensibilities. Another silly expedition into foisting ones personal morals into the world of art.
I don't know why I bother, since no one ever seems to counter my examples, but... let's say I create an artistic work that offends 99% of the population. If I cannot find a retailer to sell it, has my artistic work been "controlled" by others? Or have I just not been able to sell it through a third-party retailer? If I do find a retailer who will sell it, but they pull it after realizing how offensive it is, has my artistic work been "controlled" by others? If I find a retailer who will sell it, but the customer reaction is to boycott the store and the retailer goes out of business, has my artistic work been "controlled"? Or am I just being told that no one wants my work?
I'm free to create whatever artistic work I want, but I don't have an inherent right to have it available in stores. And everyone else is free to express their opinion by refusing to shop at places that carry works that they find to be offensive. If my work is offensive to people and I need to make money, then I need to start making work that won't offend people. But if I don't need money? I can make whatever offensive work I want (some restrictions apply, obviously).
As I've asked before to others (and again, anyone who I've asked this to has failed to respond) - do you think that consumers should never express their displeasure over the sale of offensive items? Is there no point where you would say "yeah, customers have a right to complain about that"?
I think this is a valid point.
like the movie "A Serbian Film", which no people should watch because it's awful, was not made really to make a profit
it was made because the people involved wanted to make it
they really could give a fuck less if it made money
it didn't have a right to be distributed, and people were perfectly within their right to be like "This is completely meritless, do not watch this awful piece of shit"
This whole target thing rubs me the wrong way. There's enough room in this world for us to see the things we want to see and avoid the things we dislike. While people have the right to voice their opinion, I will never support or stand for people attempting to control the artistic works of others based on their own morality.
This is the same argument it has always been, all the way back to the Catholic disfigurement of nude statues and purging of "lewd" art. It's just fancied up for modern outrage and sensibilities. Another silly expedition into foisting ones personal morals into the world of art.
I don't know why I bother, since no one ever seems to counter my examples, but... let's say I create an artistic work that offends 99% of the population. If I cannot find a retailer to sell it, has my artistic work been "controlled" by others? Or have I just not been able to sell it through a third-party retailer? If I do find a retailer who will sell it, but they pull it after realizing how offensive it is, has my artistic work been "controlled" by others? If I find a retailer who will sell it, but the customer reaction is to boycott the store and the retailer goes out of business, has my artistic work been "controlled"? Or am I just being told that no one wants my work?
I'm free to create whatever artistic work I want, but I don't have an inherent right to have it available in stores. And everyone else is free to express their opinion by refusing to shop at places that carry works that they find to be offensive. If my work is offensive to people and I need to make money, then I need to start making work that won't offend people. But if I don't need money? I can make whatever offensive work I want (some restrictions apply, obviously).
As I've asked before to others (and again, anyone who I've asked this to has failed to respond) - do you think that consumers should never express their displeasure over the sale of offensive items? Is there no point where you would say "yeah, customers have a right to complain about that"?
Brief iPhone response: I don't think art demands a platform, but I am also against the removal of platforms for non-artistic reasons. That Serbian film (thanks Pony, good example) doesn't demand a large platform because it's a fairly intense snuff porn film and doesn't command a significant audience. However those who enjoy it should have it, and not have their established access denied because of people who don't want to watch it. Does that help clarify?
"denial of established access" is pretty nebulous, bro
like when The War Z Infestation: Survivor Stories got kicked off Steam because of consumer outrage, was that "denial of established access"?
Was it "denial of established access" when Paranautical Activity was taken off Steam because one of the devs threatened to kill Gabe Newell over Twitter?
In both cases, Steam was a huge part of their distribution and being taken off was punitive. But they did have other, diminished avenues to publish their game. In neither case was it because of "artistic reasons".
Was that "denial of established access" for the adult consumers, or censorship of the developers, or both?
In a world where you can easily distribute a game online yourself, there's not an argument to be made about denial of established access for a digital product.
Even if every retailer, including digital retailers, took GTA V off the shelves, rockstar could still distribute it themselves.
There's no argument to be made that business is required to stock a product, that a distributer is required to represent a company, or that a publisher is required to product a product.
> We're now asking outlets like Big W and Woolworths whether they're going to stand up against Grand Theft Auto's violence against women as well.
I guess attempting to shut down every avenue of sale isn't censorship either. Again, Target's mistake here was that they even drew attention to the petition in the first place.
The classification board of Australia, who is *very* hypersensitive about this stuff, found the game did not encourage sexual violence. It's actually one of their redder flags. That a bunch of people got uppity and said "it's not good enough" is supposed to be what making a legislative change is about.
If the game is shit, or if the game deals with uncomfortable subject matter, I can always choose to stop playing -- I don't pretend to have the right to prevent anyone else playing it. The only time you'll see me exercising my consumer muscles are if the game is technically broken -- at which point I do my darndest to demand a refund.
> We don't need games to teach our kids that criminalistic behavior is not only acceptable but rewarding! As a mother of two boys, I'm disgusted by the awful stuff marketed to kids, and as evidenced by this latest game, we can't seem to get enough. Our society is spiraling downhill. And to believe it won't affect you personally is naive. 1 in 4 girls are sexually assaulted by the time they're 18. Which of the women in your life are you willing to sacrifice to that statistic? Our goals should be to create a better society for all rather than filling the pockets of the horrid ones willing to sacrifice their loved ones for money and pleasure.
Protested on grounds of feminist teachings (and people on this board are telling us not to bring feminism into this), quoted inaccurate feminist statistics, claimed that this was about fixing society and about the fact this game was being sold to minors (it wasn't). Never made a reference to playing he game.
> Abuse shouldn't be trivialised, let alone encouraged or rewarded. It's beyond time that we as a society say enough is enough.
Spoke about abuse being trivialised. No reference to playing the game. Blindly agreed with the petition claiming GTA 5 rewards abuse.
> I'm a woman, a gamer and a survivor and I've had enough of this sort of thing teaching another generation of young men that this sort of stuff is funny and entertaining.
Claims to be a gamer. Made no reference to the content of the game ("this sort of thing?").
> I'm sick of the ever degenerating standard of 'entertainment'. Whether through Television programs, Video games or advertisements on the internet or emblazoned across murals and posters, violence and sexually explicit messages and images are continually forced into our everyday lives. As an adult with perspective to discern what I want or don't want to be thinking about, I get frustrated having such images continually offered/ (in advertising) forced upon me. As for children, such exposure teaches them that this is normal and appropriate. That needs to change!
Actually starts a rant against murals and tv. Just doesn't like art, period.
> I would be comfortable for the game not only to be removed from Targets shelves but also banned from sale or production. In the words of Dostoevsky, "First art would imitate life, then life would imitate art and finally then would life draw its very existence from the art. If this is where we are then we can expect that the images we see in the media will become the frequent observed way in which life is led in the streets, and in your homes and schools and nurseries.
Again, no reference to playing the game. Wants it to cease production. (Actively want censorship.)
> I'm signing because I don't want my grandsons and granddaughters to grow up in a society where this kind of sick 'entertainment' is tolerated. We are better than this!
Signed because is making a judgement call about what her grandchildren should be allowed to play. No evidence of playing the game, no evidence of game being illegally sold to minors.
> I am absolutely flabbergasted that this product is even available in Australia. It shows that companies must be eternally vigilant about the products they market.
Wasn't aware that the product in question was being sold. Doubtful that such a person plays a product they are unaware is being sold.
Frankiedarling correct me if i'm wrong but did you not at one time argue against the prohibition of manga depicting sex and nudity with identifiable minors
if i'm wrong, i'm wrong, or if i'm right but your views have changed and you wanna walk back from that viewpoint, by all means point that out
but i seem to recall at one point that being your stated viewpoint, that because such works are intrinsically fictitious and do not depict harm to actual, literal children they should not be restricted to any prohibition or even social rebuke and should be deemed as socially acceptable as any other form of "art"
if i am mischaracterizing your viewpoint please feel free to correct me but
i dunno i mean, consistency of viewpoints and all that, bro
This stuff is actually censored in Australia, so I don't know why you're bringing it up here, but as a citizen who lives here, let me paint a picture of why this moral evangelism hurts.
Porn where a woman is 18 but appears younger (due to breast size, for example -- congratulations on making small breasted women feel bad about their body image) is banned. As is material depicting people urinating over one another, and squirting is deemed to be banned by the same law.
Human Centipede 2 was also banned until it was recut. *sarcasm* Because presumably there was an epidemic of media reporting on mad scientists stitching people's orifices together following the first film, despite a consistent trend of such mad scientist experiments being on the decline in the last 15 years.*/sarcasm*
And this is why pointing out the absurdity with sarcasm and satire is the correct response. Because these people are doing the wrong thing. Regardless of who they are or how many victim tags you want to attach to their oppression olympics.
The problem isn't people getting those behaviors from the game. People already have those behaviors.
The problem is another piece of media reinforcing those attitudes as being sociably acceptable. And once again, I'd you don't believe media can have that type of effect of normalizing stereotypes or behaviors, just take a look at any piece of political propaganda produced in the last oh.... Since the dawn of man.
Jesus fuck. We have a whole bunch of feminists arguing that these attitudes are rife in society. And you're getting angry that they should be just as rife in a game that attempts to reflect that society.
It's not good enough that the petition failed to find any legitimate ground, now we need to ban a game because it has women as prostitutes, it has celebrities offering sex, it has racism when you play as a black guy, and we flat out don't care if playing from these viewpoints has any moral benefit to the player because these things are just flat out banworthy?
Please don't watch the news. You might have to start a petition to ban current affairs...
"denial of established access" is pretty nebulous, bro
like when The War Z Infestation: Survivor Stories got kicked off Steam because of consumer outrage, was that "denial of established access"?
Was it "denial of established access" when Paranautical Activity was taken off Steam because one of the devs threatened to kill Gabe Newell over Twitter?
In both cases, Steam was a huge part of their distribution and being taken off was punitive. But they did have other, diminished avenues to publish their game. In neither case was it because of "artistic reasons".
Was that "denial of established access" for the adult consumers, or censorship of the developers, or both?
Apologies If it's nebulous, we're covering a lot of territory.
To start, I'm not terrible concerned with the business end of things because, as someone here said so eloquently, businesses gonna business. Profit based decisions are going to happen and I understand that, there's not much to be done there. If there is an angry mob creating bad optics, well, we kinda know where that ends. What I'm concerned with is the why, what the mob is angry about and why. Because that's what causes all the nonsense.
In putting forth "denial of established access" I'm mostly concerned with the way, which I (I suppose sloppily) attempted to quality by "people who don't want to watch it". Take for example, Une Odalisque in the Louvre. If no one enjoys the painting, and it is rarely visited, rarely viewed, I understand the business decision to remove or replace it. However, I see this as markedly different from a certain subset of people decrying the painting as lewd and attempting to have it removed despite its popularity. I understand that people will do this, but I have a healthy degree of disdain for the idea that because a person finds a work of art to be immoral, this means it is within their (moral) rights to prevent those who do not share this view from seeing it. Things that are not liked and not sufficiently viewed will sink on their own, and occasionally find ground in some other venue as a niche attraction. Attempting to forcibly move it off the mainstream because it is lewd/violent/immoral/etc/etc/etc is not something i can stomach.
I don't know the specifics of the cases you mention, so I'm not sure how exactly it went down or how I feel about it. I'm generally for separating the artist from the art but I understand if due to death threats a business decided to cut ties with an artist and by extension their art.
If Survivor Stories was generally unpopular and no one liked it, I'd suggest that it could have died a natural death due to lack of necessary purchases to keep it relevant. if it was popular and was taken down due to outrage, I'll call foul on that.
As to what I'll call it, censorship or suppression, take your pick. People seem to really hate the word Censorship here and apparently have it pegged as a dog whistle of sorts. I'll use whatever word you like, I don't feel like getting into an argument of "is this exactly the definition of censorship". We all know what we're saying and what we mean, we don't have to descend into semantics.
> We're now asking outlets like Big W and Woolworths whether they're going to stand up against Grand Theft Auto's violence against women as well.
I guess attempting to shut down every avenue of sale isn't censorship either. Again, Target's mistake here was that they even drew attention to the petition in the first place.
The classification board of Australia, who is *very* hypersensitive about this stuff, found the game did not encourage sexual violence. It's actually one of their redder flags. That a bunch of people got uppity and said "it's not good enough" is supposed to be what making a legislative change is about.
If the game is shit, or if the game deals with uncomfortable subject matter, I can always choose to stop playing -- I don't pretend to have the right to prevent anyone else playing it. The only time you'll see me exercising my consumer muscles are if the game is technically broken -- at which point I do my darndest to demand a refund.
> We don't need games to teach our kids that criminalistic behavior is not only acceptable but rewarding! As a mother of two boys, I'm disgusted by the awful stuff marketed to kids, and as evidenced by this latest game, we can't seem to get enough. Our society is spiraling downhill. And to believe it won't affect you personally is naive. 1 in 4 girls are sexually assaulted by the time they're 18. Which of the women in your life are you willing to sacrifice to that statistic? Our goals should be to create a better society for all rather than filling the pockets of the horrid ones willing to sacrifice their loved ones for money and pleasure.
Protested on grounds of feminist teachings (and people on this board are telling us not to bring feminism into this), quoted inaccurate feminist statistics, claimed that this was about fixing society and about the fact this game was being sold to minors (it wasn't). Never made a reference to playing he game.
> Abuse shouldn't be trivialised, let alone encouraged or rewarded. It's beyond time that we as a society say enough is enough.
Spoke about abuse being trivialised. No reference to playing the game. Blindly agreed with the petition claiming GTA 5 rewards abuse.
> I'm a woman, a gamer and a survivor and I've had enough of this sort of thing teaching another generation of young men that this sort of stuff is funny and entertaining.
Claims to be a gamer. Made no reference to the content of the game ("this sort of thing?").
> I'm sick of the ever degenerating standard of 'entertainment'. Whether through Television programs, Video games or advertisements on the internet or emblazoned across murals and posters, violence and sexually explicit messages and images are continually forced into our everyday lives. As an adult with perspective to discern what I want or don't want to be thinking about, I get frustrated having such images continually offered/ (in advertising) forced upon me. As for children, such exposure teaches them that this is normal and appropriate. That needs to change!
Actually starts a rant against murals and tv. Just doesn't like art, period.
> I would be comfortable for the game not only to be removed from Targets shelves but also banned from sale or production. In the words of Dostoevsky, "First art would imitate life, then life would imitate art and finally then would life draw its very existence from the art. If this is where we are then we can expect that the images we see in the media will become the frequent observed way in which life is led in the streets, and in your homes and schools and nurseries.
Again, no reference to playing the game. Wants it to cease production. (Actively want censorship.)
> I'm signing because I don't want my grandsons and granddaughters to grow up in a society where this kind of sick 'entertainment' is tolerated. We are better than this!
Signed because is making a judgement call about what her grandchildren should be allowed to play. No evidence of playing the game, no evidence of game being illegally sold to minors.
> I am absolutely flabbergasted that this product is even available in Australia. It shows that companies must be eternally vigilant about the products they market.
Wasn't aware that the product in question was being sold. Doubtful that such a person plays a product they are unaware is being sold.
Frankiedarling correct me if i'm wrong but did you not at one time argue against the prohibition of manga depicting sex and nudity with identifiable minors
if i'm wrong, i'm wrong, or if i'm right but your views have changed and you wanna walk back from that viewpoint, by all means point that out
but i seem to recall at one point that being your stated viewpoint, that because such works are intrinsically fictitious and do not depict harm to actual, literal children they should not be restricted to any prohibition or even social rebuke and should be deemed as socially acceptable as any other form of "art"
if i am mischaracterizing your viewpoint please feel free to correct me but
i dunno i mean, consistency of viewpoints and all that, bro
This stuff is actually censored in Australia, so I don't know why you're bringing it up here, but as a citizen who lives here, let me paint a picture of why this moral evangelism hurts.
Porn where a woman is 18 but appears younger (due to breast size, for example -- congratulations on making small breasted women feel bad about their body image) is banned. As is material depicting people urinating over one another, and squirting is deemed to be banned by the same law.
Human Centipede 2 was also banned until it was recut. *sarcasm* Because presumably there was an epidemic of media reporting on mad scientists stitching people's orifices together following the first film, despite a consistent trend of such mad scientist experiments being on the decline in the last 15 years.*/sarcasm*
And this is why pointing out the absurdity with sarcasm and satire is the correct response. Because these people are doing the wrong thing. Regardless of who they are or how many victim tags you want to attach to their oppression olympics.
The problem isn't people getting those behaviors from the game. People already have those behaviors.
The problem is another piece of media reinforcing those attitudes as being sociably acceptable. And once again, I'd you don't believe media can have that type of effect of normalizing stereotypes or behaviors, just take a look at any piece of political propaganda produced in the last oh.... Since the dawn of man.
Jesus fuck. We have a whole bunch of feminists arguing that these attitudes are rife in society. And you're getting angry that they should be just as rife in a game that attempts to reflect that society.
It's not good enough that the petition failed to find any legitimate ground, now we need to ban a game because it has women as prostitutes, it has celebrities offering sex, it has racism when you play as a black guy, and we flat out don't care if playing from these viewpoints has any moral benefit to the player because these things are just flat out banworthy?
Please don't watch the news. You might have to start a petition to ban current affairs...
*shrugs* who has a bad grasp on and dealing with reality, the guy getting outraged over a game no longer being sold at two retailers while still being widely available, or the guy who's not supporting the petitioners but trying to patiently explain their position to the former while constantly having insults thrown at him?
The problem isn't people getting those behaviors from the game. People already have those behaviors.
The problem is another piece of media reinforcing those attitudes as being sociably acceptable. And once again, I'd you don't believe media can have that type of effect of normalizing stereotypes or behaviors, just take a look at any piece of political propaganda produced in the last oh.... Since the dawn of man.
people get their ideas about what is "normal" from their surroundings
this includes their friends, their family, their neighbourhood, their education and also the media they consume
if your media is constantly telling you that sexism is normal you will internalize that, even if you don't agree with it on a conscious level
that last point is key
people think that if they don't believe they are sexist, they can't be sexist. it doesn't work like that. you can earnestly believe you don't hate women and still act in a way that is consonant with hating women. nobody has as much conscious control over that as they think they do
so the idea that people are smart enough to distinguish between what a game is telling them and what is actually true is true on the surface but kind of misses the point
I understand the point you are making but that's the point of the ratings system, to ensure that certain content is only experienced when a person is mature enough to understand it. By the time they do it isn't going to change the likelihood of that person doing something horrible.
If you truly believe the people are so easily swayed by the media they consume then the end game for such argument would be the complete removal from society of any art even remotely controversial or challenging as arbitrarily decided by whoever is troubled by said work.
Goodbye Bible, Koran, Se7en, Straw Dogs, everything by Black Sabbath, Harry Potter, Pisschrist, Dungeons and Dragons, Lolita, Teletubbies, Reservoir Dogs, Blazing Saddles, To Kill A Mockinbird and so on.
I absolutely understand the point you are making but I still disagree.
EDIT: There's also the case to be made that setting of GTA is a parody of society, therefore the sexism that exists within the game is a parody of the sexism within society but I'm not sure how much I agree with that. It might be a bit of a stretch.
The problem isn't people getting those behaviors from the game. People already have those behaviors.
The problem is another piece of media reinforcing those attitudes as being sociably acceptable. And once again, I'd you don't believe media can have that type of effect of normalizing stereotypes or behaviors, just take a look at any piece of political propaganda produced in the last oh.... Since the dawn of man.
people get their ideas about what is "normal" from their surroundings
this includes their friends, their family, their neighbourhood, their education and also the media they consume
if your media is constantly telling you that sexism is normal you will internalize that, even if you don't agree with it on a conscious level
that last point is key
people think that if they don't believe they are sexist, they can't be sexist. it doesn't work like that. you can earnestly believe you don't hate women and still act in a way that is consonant with hating women. nobody has as much conscious control over that as they think they do
so the idea that people are smart enough to distinguish between what a game is telling them and what is actually true is true on the surface but kind of misses the point
I understand the point you are making but that's the point of the ratings system, to ensure that certain content is only experienced when a person is mature enough to understand it. By the time they do it isn't going to change the likelihood of that person doing something horrible.
If you truly believe the people are so easily swayed by the media they consume then the end game for such argument would be the complete removal from society of any art even remotely controversial or challenging as arbitrarily decided by whoever is troubled by said work.
Goodbye Bible, Koran, Se7en, Straw Dogs, everything by Black Sabbath, Harry Potter, Pisschrist, Dungeons and Dragons, Lolita, Teletubbies, Reservoir Dogs, Blazing Saddles, To Kill A Mockinbird and so on.
I absolutely understand the point you are making but I still disagree.
EDIT: There's also the case to be made that setting of GTA is a parody of society, therefore the sexism that exists within the game is a parody of the sexism within society but I'm not sure how much I agree with that. It might be a bit of a stretch.
I don't have a problem with GTA V being made or sold by anyone. I've bought the game twice.
I'm not pushing a ban of the game. I'm saying I agree that it can perpetuate and reinforce negative viewpoints, not that I think that warrants it being removed from society.
Seriously, as long as rockstar is allowed to produce and sell the game (either to distributors or consumers themselves) I see no great injustice or ban going on. I see businesses and consumers making decisions that don't effect the decisions Rockstar can or cannot make.
There's a world of difference between what is going on and any form of ban. Unless the ban people are referring to is a ban from private entities being forced to sell things they don't want to.
I don't have a problem with GTA V being made or sold by anyone. I've bought the game twice.
I'm not pushing a ban of the game. I'm saying I agree that it can perpetuate and reinforce negative viewpoints, not that I think that warrants it being removed from society.
Seriously, as long as rockstar is allowed to produce and sell the game (either to distributors or consumers themselves) I see no great injustice or ban going on. I see businesses and consumers making decisions that don't effect the decisions Rockstar can or cannot make.
There's a world of difference between what is going on and any form of ban. Unless the ban people are referring to is a ban from private entities being forced to sell things they don't want to.
That I agree with, but that was my original point. Their stated goal IS to see it being stopped for sale at any place they can, to stop adults, who have fought long and hard to have access to these items from having access. That's what I have a problem with.
I'm not sure whether this is sad or funny but I noticed when the petition came through my inbox that the only way to comment on it was to sign it and leave an additional message, which people opposing the petition had done. A lot. Because they're idiots.
It also includes plenty of international signatures too.
Now I'm actually curious as to how many customers Target would have actually lost had they made the decision to ignore it. Don't get me wrong I'm way too lazy to do any counting but it's a pretty bad case of tossers digging their own grave.
*shrugs* who has a bad grasp on and dealing with reality, the guy getting outraged over a game no longer being sold at two retailers while still being widely available,
or the guy who's not supporting the petitioners but trying to patiently explain their position to the former while constantly having insults thrown at him?
What insult?
For a guy who's not supporting the petitioners because he's *against* curtailing the freedoms of others:
I am OK with movements using their voice to influence corporations with the goal of trampleing on people's rights. I am not OK with the GOAL of trampling on people's rights. I would fight any such movement, not demonize their methods of enacting their goal.
I don't care about legitimate methods, I care about the goals.
You spend an awful lot of time defending it as though it's achieving something you agree with.
The problem is another piece of media reinforcing those attitudes as being sociably acceptable. And once again, I'd you don't believe media can have that type of effect of normalizing stereotypes or behaviors, just take a look at any piece of political propaganda produced in the last oh.... Since the dawn of man.
Posts
Agree in what sense? Agree with their opinion of the game? Not completely, no, although they're hardly the first bunch to call the whole GTA series out for some of its artistic statements, which is completely fine.
I agree that they have a right to send in a petition. And I agree that the store had a right to choose to do what they ask. Or to not choose to do what they ask. These are basic freedoms and there's nothing wrong with people making use of them.
It's not censorship.
It's just some people doing stuff they have a right to do, but that you don't like. It's okay not to like it and it's okay to think that it was a dumb or pointless move -- I certainly agree on the "pointless" part. But all of this pearl-clutching "HOW DARE THEY CENSOR US!!" bullcrap just makes the gaming community look like a bunch of whiny spoiled brats with no grasp of the real world and the inability to look up definitions in the dictionary. I'm getting really, really tired of certain segments of the gaming community making us all look bad (like, really, incredibly bad) and I just wish J&M would quit encouraging those elements.
Edited to add: Really liked Jim's take on it, particularly the commentary that started at about 0:49 and went on for the next five or so seconds. That summed up my reaction to this kerfuffle really well. I also got a really funny image in my head of meth dealers getting outraged at Toys R Us pulling the Breaking Bad toys and starting up petitions and Twitter campaigns to claim that Toys R Us was censoring their favorite art and that meth dealing really wasn't that bad and they were being unfairly represented. Made me snicker a lot. Thanks Jim!
The "Walking Simulator" tag
A negative review complaining about length (and also hopefully complaining about the price per hour of gameplay)
A review calling it "not a game" or "not technically a game"
Citation needed
"Squawks". I can see how you feel their opinions are worth less than "OBJECTIVE REVIEWS". How dare they.
You mean the thing where Jerry and Mike made jokes about "rape culture" being a band name and started printing Dickwolves shirts specifically to piss off the people who were offended by casual rape references?
Oh yeah that was totally on the rape victims. They sure made fools out of them.
I'm not sure what you mean. You can't fathom that people might sympathize with abused sex workers who have actually faced violence, and who find the game to be horribly offensive and dismissive of what they've gone through? You can't fathom that people might see gameplay videos like this (potentially NSFW, features the 1st-person view of receiving a prostitute's services in GTA V, also running over said prostitute, setting her on fire, and shooting up her corpse) and recoil with horror and think the game shouldn't be sold at a general retail store? You can't fathom that people might see something like this article and ask general retail stores to not carry this product?
Really?
I mean, even if you disagree with their opinion, you really can't fathom how people might agree with those who created the petition?
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
Only lawmakers could make that happen. They didn't write to lawmakers. They wrote to a store. Period. Come on, man. Aussies won the battle to have adult games. They WON!
Something not being carried in a particular store is not "banned".
That's what I meant by Still though, what made them think that they have the right to decide it? And what makes some people think that it is acceptable to judge medium you know nothing about?
Who said they know nothing about it?
First lines of petition: The game never actually encourages you to murder innocent women, it's mostly your choise. You can't commit sexual violence(unless they count having sex with prostitutes as sexual violence). And you don't get HP for killing anyone.
GTA is clearly a very violent game, but there is line between game allowing you to do something, and encouraging you to do it.
Based on it, I would assume that they didn't actually play the game, and mostly based their petition on their assumptions about the game and the fact that most people who aren't gamers will believe people who created this petition, with GTA being the subject of controversy in the past.
Also, the author of the petition was constantly saying that the game is misogynistic, which is not actually true, since misogyny is a hatred for women, while in GTA you can hate and kill both men and women. So I guess the word "misanthropy" will apply better. But I feel like being a misanthrope won't be viewed as negative as being a misogynist, so they chose this word for petition to demonize the game a little more.
They didn't decide squat. Target-AU decided. And Target-Au bloody well has the right to decide what they want to carry in their store.
And anyone can have any opinion about anything they want -- no one has to apply to you to get permission to have an opinion, even one you find stupid. Get it?
Anyways, as I said, since the game can still be bought there it's no actual problem. And it wouldn't be as bad if the complains of the petitioners were valid, but as can be seen, they clearly have little idea what they are talking about. While GTA is a really violent and brutal game, it's not as bad as they make it out to be.
From the UK Gamespot review:
"On a less positive note, it’s deeply frustrating that, while its central and supporting male characters are flawed and complex characters, with a few extremely minor exceptions (such as the aforementioned optional getaway driver), GTA V has little room for women except to portray them as strippers, prostitutes, long-suffering wives, humorless girlfriends and goofy, new-age feminists we’re meant to laugh at.
Characters constantly spout lines that glorify male sexuality while demeaning women, and the billboards and radio stations of the world reinforce this misogyny, with ads that equate manhood with sleek sports cars while encouraging women to purchase a fragrance that will make them “smell like a bitch.” Yes, these are exaggerations of misogynistic undercurrents in our own society, but not satirical ones. With nothing in the narrative to underscore how insane and wrong this is, all the game does is reinforce and celebrate sexism. The beauty of cruising in the sun-kissed Los Santos hills while listening to “Higher Love” by Steve Winwood turns sour really quick when a voice comes on the radio that talks about using a woman as a urinal."
Yep, no misogyny here.
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-the-holy-bible-this-sickening-book-encourages-readers-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women
A pretty childish response, but there is some logic in it.
It was expressing the fact that they will not shop at Target AU as long as Target AU carries a product they see as destructive. The second part is the opinion. The first is what that opinion is leading them to do.
Not supporting a company that is selling something that you see is bad is just acting based on personal preference. Letting that company know how you feel is feedback. What's wrong with consumer feedback?
Your and their opinion is based on each respective interpretation of the game. Your subjective interpretation of the game is different from their subjective interpretation. They haven't banned a game from anywhere. They simply told a store they find one of their products objectionable and would probably shop somewhere else if they continued to sell that product. Target weighed their options and decided these customers were more important to them than people who wanted to buy GTA. Nothing was banned and no one was censored any more than when Target continues to not sell porn.
P.S. Please stop using feminist/feminism as some sort of dirty word, it makes you sound like an idiot. Also, please stop comparing GTAV to kiddie porn, it's equally ridiculous.
No, it's in the many bits of radio dialogue, ambient pedestrian dialogue, billboard advertisements, and dialogue and behavior of various characters in the game's cutscenes.
Those are almost universally offensive and are predicated on misogynistic stereotyping and poor, sub-South Park attempts at "humor".
What makes GTAV misogynistic isn't that adults can't tell fantasy from reality and are going to go out and murder sex workers because video games.
It's that it reinforces existent societal prejudices and hatreds against women, trans people, etc.
Ones that are not violent, but are nonetheless insidious, unchallenged, and easily reinforced especially among the game's target demographic of young white men.
Will it lead to those young men killing prostitutes? No, I don't think so. Will it help reinforce notions that it's normal and okay to think women are bitches and whores who exist to either suck their dicks or make their lives hell?
Yep. That's where some feel it's not for the net good of society to be available.
You're still asserting that adults are going to carry those behaviours outside of the game because they're unable to tell where one ends and the other begins and I still disagree.
The problem isn't people getting those behaviors from the game. People already have those behaviors.
The problem is another piece of media reinforcing those attitudes as being sociably acceptable. And once again, I'd you don't believe media can have that type of effect of normalizing stereotypes or behaviors, just take a look at any piece of political propaganda produced in the last oh.... Since the dawn of man.
people get their ideas about what is "normal" from their surroundings
this includes their friends, their family, their neighbourhood, their education and also the media they consume
if your media is constantly telling you that sexism is normal you will internalize that, even if you don't agree with it on a conscious level
that last point is key
people think that if they don't believe they are sexist, they can't be sexist. it doesn't work like that. you can earnestly believe you don't hate women and still act in a way that is consonant with hating women. nobody has as much conscious control over that as they think they do
so the idea that people are smart enough to distinguish between what a game is telling them and what is actually true is true on the surface but kind of misses the point
This is the same argument it has always been, all the way back to the Catholic disfigurement of nude statues and purging of "lewd" art. It's just fancied up for modern outrage and sensibilities. Another silly expedition into foisting ones personal morals into the world of art.
Frankiedarling correct me if i'm wrong but did you not at one time argue against the prohibition of manga depicting sex and nudity with identifiable minors
if i'm wrong, i'm wrong, or if i'm right but your views have changed and you wanna walk back from that viewpoint, by all means point that out
but i seem to recall at one point that being your stated viewpoint, that because such works are intrinsically fictitious and do not depict harm to actual, literal children they should not be restricted to any prohibition or even social rebuke and should be deemed as socially acceptable as any other form of "art"
if i am mischaracterizing your viewpoint please feel free to correct me but
i dunno i mean, consistency of viewpoints and all that, bro
I don't remember the instance, though I will say I'm firmly on the side of fiction being fiction, no matter if it's role play, literature or pornography.
Some depictions are entirely distasteful to me but if it is legal, as far as I'm concerned people can fuck right off with trying to police tastes and fetishes. It's a muddy road that way, full of hypocrisy and inconsistency
I don't know why I bother, since no one ever seems to counter my examples, but... let's say I create an artistic work that offends 99% of the population. If I cannot find a retailer to sell it, has my artistic work been "controlled" by others? Or have I just not been able to sell it through a third-party retailer? If I do find a retailer who will sell it, but they pull it after realizing how offensive it is, has my artistic work been "controlled" by others? If I find a retailer who will sell it, but the customer reaction is to boycott the store and the retailer goes out of business, has my artistic work been "controlled"? Or am I just being told that no one wants my work, and that retailers don't want my work representing their store?
I'm free to create whatever artistic work I want, but I don't have an inherent right to have it available in stores. And everyone else is free to express their opinion by refusing to shop at places that carry works that they find to be offensive. If my work is offensive to people and I need to make money, then I need to start making work that won't offend people. But if I don't need money? I can make whatever offensive work I want (some restrictions apply, obviously).
As I've asked before to others (and again, anyone who I've asked this to has failed to respond) - do you think that consumers should never express their displeasure over the sale of offensive items? Is there no point where you would say "yeah, customers have a right to complain about that"?
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
I think this is a valid point.
like the movie "A Serbian Film", which no people should watch because it's awful, was not made really to make a profit
it was made because the people involved wanted to make it
they really could give a fuck less if it made money
it didn't have a right to be distributed, and people were perfectly within their right to be like "This is completely meritless, do not watch this awful piece of shit"
but they still got to make their art
Brief iPhone response: I don't think art demands a platform, but I am also against the removal of platforms for non-artistic reasons. That Serbian film (thanks Pony, good example) doesn't demand a large platform because it's a fairly intense snuff porn film and doesn't command a significant audience. However those who enjoy it should have it, and not have their established access denied because of people who don't want to watch it. Does that help clarify?
like when The War Z Infestation: Survivor Stories got kicked off Steam because of consumer outrage, was that "denial of established access"?
Was it "denial of established access" when Paranautical Activity was taken off Steam because one of the devs threatened to kill Gabe Newell over Twitter?
In both cases, Steam was a huge part of their distribution and being taken off was punitive. But they did have other, diminished avenues to publish their game. In neither case was it because of "artistic reasons".
Was that "denial of established access" for the adult consumers, or censorship of the developers, or both?
Even if every retailer, including digital retailers, took GTA V off the shelves, rockstar could still distribute it themselves.
There's no argument to be made that business is required to stock a product, that a distributer is required to represent a company, or that a publisher is required to product a product.
Well, how can I play the game if it becomes banned before I'm allowed to purchase it on my platform of choice?
https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women/u/8923586
> We're now asking outlets like Big W and Woolworths whether they're going to stand up against Grand Theft Auto's violence against women as well.
I guess attempting to shut down every avenue of sale isn't censorship either. Again, Target's mistake here was that they even drew attention to the petition in the first place.
The classification board of Australia, who is *very* hypersensitive about this stuff, found the game did not encourage sexual violence. It's actually one of their redder flags. That a bunch of people got uppity and said "it's not good enough" is supposed to be what making a legislative change is about.
If the game is shit, or if the game deals with uncomfortable subject matter, I can always choose to stop playing -- I don't pretend to have the right to prevent anyone else playing it. The only time you'll see me exercising my consumer muscles are if the game is technically broken -- at which point I do my darndest to demand a refund.
How many do you want?
> We don't need games to teach our kids that criminalistic behavior is not only acceptable but rewarding! As a mother of two boys, I'm disgusted by the awful stuff marketed to kids, and as evidenced by this latest game, we can't seem to get enough. Our society is spiraling downhill. And to believe it won't affect you personally is naive. 1 in 4 girls are sexually assaulted by the time they're 18. Which of the women in your life are you willing to sacrifice to that statistic? Our goals should be to create a better society for all rather than filling the pockets of the horrid ones willing to sacrifice their loved ones for money and pleasure.
Protested on grounds of feminist teachings (and people on this board are telling us not to bring feminism into this), quoted inaccurate feminist statistics, claimed that this was about fixing society and about the fact this game was being sold to minors (it wasn't). Never made a reference to playing he game.
> Abuse shouldn't be trivialised, let alone encouraged or rewarded. It's beyond time that we as a society say enough is enough.
Spoke about abuse being trivialised. No reference to playing the game. Blindly agreed with the petition claiming GTA 5 rewards abuse.
> I'm a woman, a gamer and a survivor and I've had enough of this sort of thing teaching another generation of young men that this sort of stuff is funny and entertaining.
Claims to be a gamer. Made no reference to the content of the game ("this sort of thing?").
> I'm sick of the ever degenerating standard of 'entertainment'. Whether through Television programs, Video games or advertisements on the internet or emblazoned across murals and posters, violence and sexually explicit messages and images are continually forced into our everyday lives. As an adult with perspective to discern what I want or don't want to be thinking about, I get frustrated having such images continually offered/ (in advertising) forced upon me. As for children, such exposure teaches them that this is normal and appropriate. That needs to change!
Actually starts a rant against murals and tv. Just doesn't like art, period.
> I would be comfortable for the game not only to be removed from Targets shelves but also banned from sale or production. In the words of Dostoevsky, "First art would imitate life, then life would imitate art and finally then would life draw its very existence from the art. If this is where we are then we can expect that the images we see in the media will become the frequent observed way in which life is led in the streets, and in your homes and schools and nurseries.
Again, no reference to playing the game. Wants it to cease production. (Actively want censorship.)
> I'm signing because I don't want my grandsons and granddaughters to grow up in a society where this kind of sick 'entertainment' is tolerated. We are better than this!
Signed because is making a judgement call about what her grandchildren should be allowed to play. No evidence of playing the game, no evidence of game being illegally sold to minors.
> I am absolutely flabbergasted that this product is even available in Australia. It shows that companies must be eternally vigilant about the products they market.
Wasn't aware that the product in question was being sold. Doubtful that such a person plays a product they are unaware is being sold.
This stuff is actually censored in Australia, so I don't know why you're bringing it up here, but as a citizen who lives here, let me paint a picture of why this moral evangelism hurts.
Porn where a woman is 18 but appears younger (due to breast size, for example -- congratulations on making small breasted women feel bad about their body image) is banned. As is material depicting people urinating over one another, and squirting is deemed to be banned by the same law.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/29/has-australia-really-banned-small-breasts/
Human Centipede 2 was also banned until it was recut. *sarcasm* Because presumably there was an epidemic of media reporting on mad scientists stitching people's orifices together following the first film, despite a consistent trend of such mad scientist experiments being on the decline in the last 15 years.*/sarcasm*
And this is why pointing out the absurdity with sarcasm and satire is the correct response. Because these people are doing the wrong thing. Regardless of who they are or how many victim tags you want to attach to their oppression olympics.
Jesus fuck. We have a whole bunch of feminists arguing that these attitudes are rife in society. And you're getting angry that they should be just as rife in a game that attempts to reflect that society.
It's not good enough that the petition failed to find any legitimate ground, now we need to ban a game because it has women as prostitutes, it has celebrities offering sex, it has racism when you play as a black guy, and we flat out don't care if playing from these viewpoints has any moral benefit to the player because these things are just flat out banworthy?
Please don't watch the news. You might have to start a petition to ban current affairs...
Apologies If it's nebulous, we're covering a lot of territory.
To start, I'm not terrible concerned with the business end of things because, as someone here said so eloquently, businesses gonna business. Profit based decisions are going to happen and I understand that, there's not much to be done there. If there is an angry mob creating bad optics, well, we kinda know where that ends. What I'm concerned with is the why, what the mob is angry about and why. Because that's what causes all the nonsense.
In putting forth "denial of established access" I'm mostly concerned with the way, which I (I suppose sloppily) attempted to quality by "people who don't want to watch it". Take for example, Une Odalisque in the Louvre. If no one enjoys the painting, and it is rarely visited, rarely viewed, I understand the business decision to remove or replace it. However, I see this as markedly different from a certain subset of people decrying the painting as lewd and attempting to have it removed despite its popularity. I understand that people will do this, but I have a healthy degree of disdain for the idea that because a person finds a work of art to be immoral, this means it is within their (moral) rights to prevent those who do not share this view from seeing it. Things that are not liked and not sufficiently viewed will sink on their own, and occasionally find ground in some other venue as a niche attraction. Attempting to forcibly move it off the mainstream because it is lewd/violent/immoral/etc/etc/etc is not something i can stomach.
I don't know the specifics of the cases you mention, so I'm not sure how exactly it went down or how I feel about it. I'm generally for separating the artist from the art but I understand if due to death threats a business decided to cut ties with an artist and by extension their art.
If Survivor Stories was generally unpopular and no one liked it, I'd suggest that it could have died a natural death due to lack of necessary purchases to keep it relevant. if it was popular and was taken down due to outrage, I'll call foul on that.
As to what I'll call it, censorship or suppression, take your pick. People seem to really hate the word Censorship here and apparently have it pegged as a dog whistle of sorts. I'll use whatever word you like, I don't feel like getting into an argument of "is this exactly the definition of censorship". We all know what we're saying and what we mean, we don't have to descend into semantics.
*shrugs* who has a bad grasp on and dealing with reality, the guy getting outraged over a game no longer being sold at two retailers while still being widely available, or the guy who's not supporting the petitioners but trying to patiently explain their position to the former while constantly having insults thrown at him?
I understand the point you are making but that's the point of the ratings system, to ensure that certain content is only experienced when a person is mature enough to understand it. By the time they do it isn't going to change the likelihood of that person doing something horrible.
If you truly believe the people are so easily swayed by the media they consume then the end game for such argument would be the complete removal from society of any art even remotely controversial or challenging as arbitrarily decided by whoever is troubled by said work.
Goodbye Bible, Koran, Se7en, Straw Dogs, everything by Black Sabbath, Harry Potter, Pisschrist, Dungeons and Dragons, Lolita, Teletubbies, Reservoir Dogs, Blazing Saddles, To Kill A Mockinbird and so on.
I absolutely understand the point you are making but I still disagree.
EDIT: There's also the case to be made that setting of GTA is a parody of society, therefore the sexism that exists within the game is a parody of the sexism within society but I'm not sure how much I agree with that. It might be a bit of a stretch.
I don't have a problem with GTA V being made or sold by anyone. I've bought the game twice.
I'm not pushing a ban of the game. I'm saying I agree that it can perpetuate and reinforce negative viewpoints, not that I think that warrants it being removed from society.
Seriously, as long as rockstar is allowed to produce and sell the game (either to distributors or consumers themselves) I see no great injustice or ban going on. I see businesses and consumers making decisions that don't effect the decisions Rockstar can or cannot make.
There's a world of difference between what is going on and any form of ban. Unless the ban people are referring to is a ban from private entities being forced to sell things they don't want to.
That I agree with, but that was my original point. Their stated goal IS to see it being stopped for sale at any place they can, to stop adults, who have fought long and hard to have access to these items from having access. That's what I have a problem with.
I'm not sure whether this is sad or funny but I noticed when the petition came through my inbox that the only way to comment on it was to sign it and leave an additional message, which people opposing the petition had done. A lot. Because they're idiots.
https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women
It also includes plenty of international signatures too.
Now I'm actually curious as to how many customers Target would have actually lost had they made the decision to ignore it. Don't get me wrong I'm way too lazy to do any counting but it's a pretty bad case of tossers digging their own grave.
https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women/u/8923586
The petitioners are widening their net. What's the magic number? 3? 4?? 5???
Engaging them by acknowledging the petition was a mistake.
What insult?
For a guy who's not supporting the petitioners because he's *against* curtailing the freedoms of others:
You spend an awful lot of time defending it as though it's achieving something you agree with.